pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

allule. The ways have been tried but they are not listening. Meanwhile some grandchildren are trying to kill other grandchildren, and in some cases succeeding. You have dead grandchildren already. Do you carry on merely talking?

whitewave. Your post of 12.23pm yesterday.
This is the nearest I can find to what you said
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/03/jeremy-corbyn-cannot-envisage-sending-british-troops-overseas

which is actually not at all like you said?

I thought the gist of what JC said was that he wasn't likely to support military action that could be considered an illegal war i.e. Aggression against another state without the sanction of the UN or NATO. Syria hasn't invited us in to my knowledge. I didn't hear him say he would never support military action.

As a grandmother, do you encourage your grandchildren to settle their differences by fighting it out with no holds barred, regardless of injuries and damage to the house and bystanders, or do you try to find ways of getting them to sort out their differences by discussion and negotiation?

Perhaps googling for every topic isn't helpful?

I will reiterate, that I only briefly googled. And add that I only then mainly looked at it from a God/Bible point of view.

I remember very little study of the two world wars either at primary[probably there was none] or secondary[I gave up history as a subject as soon as I could], and I dont remember what we studied, but whatever it was, there were not many history lessons, and I am pretty sure that there was little or very little talk about WWs. I do remember Henry 8th, that is all I remember.

Nothing to do with God , all to do with a pacifist , so as you disagree with him how can you ask what pacifism is ? You ask about Corbyn and pacifism , it has nothing to do with his politics, I spoke of Soper but not of his faith

Did you not study the two world wars in school?

The God and war topic I happened to start before the attrocities in Paris. But anyone is welcome to put anything to do with God or war or whatever they like on there. Prayers too. Whatever.

I dont really understand what he stood for. As I said before I was very young at the time, early teens? So having only briefly googled and going by what you have written about him, yes I disagree with him.
[you might be best bringing this up on a religious topic such as God and war, rather than news and politics?]

soon, you said in a reply to me that you disagreed with Lord Sopers views, how could you disagree when you now say you don't understand what he stood for ?

Thank you Elegran for that description.
I am 20 years younger than a lot of gransnetters, and did not know much of the above post at all.

A couple of more questions please?
Would a pacifist therefore go to war? And do defence and self defence?

soon The term "conscientious objector" was given in wartime to those who refused to obey the summons conscripting them into the armed forces, because they did not believe in killing, not even killing in defence.

They were instead directed to other work, like stretcher-bearing for first-aid teams, where they did sterling service helping the injured, often losing their own lives under fire. Some of the alternative work was arduous and dangerous, and they were generally despised by the soldiers and called "conchies"

They would not have killed for a different army, because it had nothing to do with the ideals of their own country.

A pacifist believes in peace and works for it.

whitewave, while you question, IS continue.
How long would you like questioning to continue?

Paris happened while people questioned.

2 posters are defending the pacifism. 1 thinks that JC's stance is great. And 3 mention talk about things against IS as tit for tat/revenge.

Meanwhile what IS is doing is continuing.

The decision makers must always be challenged in an open democracy. Do not deride those who question any decision, it is important that any strategy is challenged to be clear what the aim and outcomes are hopin g to be achieved

I don't know why anyone would think that?

Perhaps I will ask the questions in it of the several posters on here who want IS to be allowed to carry on killing I have no idea how many, innocent people abroad.

Which posters have said that??? That's an outrageous statement!

I dont think that revenge is the number one motive for attacks on IS. That rather sounds like an excuse

Which rather brings me back to my op. Perhaps I will ask the questions in it of the several posters on here who want IS to be allowed to carry on killing I have no idea how many, innocent people abroad.

As regards cos. If they are in a country that has say differect sects/religions/philosophies. Might they decided to not join one army, but join a different one in a different part of the same country? Or go over the border and fight for one, but insist they would not fight for a certain other one? Is that how it works?

trisher. I had expected this thread to discuss all 3 - cos, pacifists and JC. I had thought that there were some possible gransnet members who would call themselves cos or pacifists, who could enlighten me further.

I am more than willing to be corrected about my op. That is what I really meant the thread to be about.

I googled at some point afterwards, and ended up rather confused.
If you look at the op, I actually start it with "£I dont get it".

Well I still dont get it actually. So trisher, I would be delighted if you would completely put me straight.

From googling, it appears that to some, pacifist mean one thing, and to some other people it means something else, as far as I can gather.

But I still dont know whether they would do the scenarios I mentioned or not.
After the JC stuff on here, I am not sure whether he or perhaps pacifists actually know themselves?

Thank you, it does clarify things.

The only thing is that the Russians would want Assad to remain

The other thing is that Hezbollah is against ISIL too - and JBC is friends with Hezbollah. They and others in the Middle East want to be rid of ISIL.

So does JBC agree with the stance of Hezbollah (but not Europeans who have the same aim?)

And so it goes on .....

" If we are going to use language let us at least do so with some accuracy." (quoting trisher)

So long as know what we mean, and we can usually work it out, that fine IMO.

It's not "tit-for-tat" bombing. It's far more than that. It's a strategy to save the Western world.

Right minded people see that IS have to be destroyed. They do want world domination.

The French, for obvious reasons want to destroy IS, and are bombing their military bases. The Russians have been bombing all rebels against the Assad regime, but since the bomb on the plane Putin has seen that it is IS who needs to be wiped out so now will concentrate on that. Cameron is determined to persuade our gov to say yes to our bombing IS. He intends to do this within a few weeks.

The French, the Russians and the UK, would become allies to get rid of IS.

Very scary. It means we will probably be next for a terror attack. Perhaps after Washington.

Assad would still be in power. But once IS is dealt with, they would all negotiate to remove the Assad regime.

That's how I see it. (to rq)

I think that events have proved that this was the right decision
I meant because we would now be on the same side as Assad - the original vote which was defeated was to go in to remove him.

That is why I am